Watch "Dear Greta, Are Trees Worth More Than Babies?" on YouTube

[goout]

goout:

LeafByNiggle:

goout:

Right, it’s not a sin to vote democrat or republican per se.

I didn’t ask you about some generic Democrat and some generic Republican. I asked about two specific individuals. You know everything about their position as well as I do. So do you think Catholic doctrine in this very specific case prevents me from voting as I said? Or might it be that I could vote for Amy without sinning?

Only you can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision.

Wow, this sounds like we are in total agreement.

We are most definitely not in agreement. (I think you know that)

Well, if only I can distill all the moral factors and come to a moral decision, then it is possible I could come to a decision to vote for Amy Klobuchar to avoid what I distill as a worse threat from Trump. I don’t consider it abdicating my responsibility. I consider it living up to my responsibility. That’s all I claim.

You can claim what you like.
The facts at your disposal are:
One party specifically advocates for the right to slaughter innocent human beings. Let that sink in.
The other advocates to protect human life at all stages.
(both parties vote for huge human welfare programs, so that is a matter of the best way to accomplish these objectives, not a denial of human rights)
The fact that the POTUS is an offensive boor really doesn’t determine the moral content of the issue.

If you can’t even protect the right to live, talk about human rights is pointless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can see it that way if you want. I see it differently.

 

[goout]

You can see it that way if you want. I see it differently.

Wait. You don’t acknowledge that one party promotes the choice to slaughter small human beings?
That shouldn’t be a matter of subjective perceptions, like, “purple azaleas are beautiful”.
This is a matter of specifically stated policies that anyone who has eyes to see, can see.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is your conclusion regarding voting that I see differently.

 

[Jen95]

Ironically, look at the title of Greta Thunberg’s book:
https://www.amazon.com/One-Too-Smal...all&qid=1578965842&sprefix=greta+thunb&sr=8-1

 

[HarryStotle]

Pull-ease. The entitled daddy in the video, (see original post), won’t even limit his red meat consumption or driving habits.

Kind of like the entitled climate alarmists who won’t limit their flying around the world in their private jets and buying large mansions on seafront property, or using two large commercial jets to campaign for political office, or wantonly littering and polluting in the locales they hold their large conventions where they endlessly go on about the weather.

Point us to where you have decried those “entitled” climate daddies and you will have established your impartiality on the entitlement side of the issue.

Oh, wait…

…my bad.

I am using whataboutism, ain’t I?

Ergo we ought to condemn the red-meat eating father and absolve the jetting-wherever-they-go celebrities on the grounds that whataboutism is a logical fallacy. :crazy_face:

I suppose that pretty much depicts the logic of the age.

Don’t criticize this group over here that are doing even worse than that group because that would be whataboutism, a logical faux pas.

Whereas using fear and dread to frighten children into extreme anxiety over climate in order to push a political narrative, well that’s okay because… uh… … we need more government intrusion and intervention in our lives.

Like that strategy has a stellar track record.